The study of the recognition or lack of recognition of cancer cells by a host organism has proceeded in many different directions. Understanding of the field presumes some understanding of both basic immunology and oncology.
Early research on mouse tumors revealed that these displayed molecules which led to rejection of tumor cells when transplanted into syngeneic animals. These molecules are "recognized" by T-cells in the recipient animal, and provoke a cytolytic T-cell response with lysis of the transplanted cells. This evidence was first obtained with tumors induced in vitro by chemical carcinogens, such as methylcholanthrene. The antigens expressed by the tumors and which elicited the T-cell response were found to be different for each tumor. See Prehn, et al., J. Natl. Canc. Inst. 18: 769-778 (1957); Klein et al., Cancer Res. 20: 1561-1572 (1960); Gross, Cancer Res. 3: 326-333 (1943), Basombrio, Cancer Res. 30: 2458-2462 (1970) for general teachings on inducing tumors with chemical carcinogens and differences in cell surface antigens. This class of antigens has come to be known as "tumor specific transplantation antigens" or "TSTAs". Following the observation of the presentation of such antigens when induced by chemical carcinogens, similar results were obtained when tumors were induced in vitro via ultraviolet radiation. See Kripke, J. Natl. Canc. Inst. 53: 333-1336 (1974).
While T-cell mediated immune responses were observed for the types of tumor described supra, spontaneous tumors were thought to be generally non-immunogenic. These were therefore believed not to present antigens which provoked a response to the tumor in the tumor carrying subject. See Hewitt, et al., Brit. J. Cancer 33: 241-259 (1976).
The family of tum.sup.- antigen presenting cell lines are immunogenic variants obtained by mutagenesis of mouse tumor cells or cell lines, as described by Boon et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1184-1193 (1980), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. To elaborate, tum.sup.- antigens are obtained by mutating tumor cells which do not generate an immune response in syngeneic mice and will form tumors (i.e., "tum.sup.+ " cells). When these tum.sup.+ cells are mutagenized, they are rejected by syngeneic mice, and fail to form tumors (thus "tum.sup.- "). See Boon et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74: 272 (1977), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Many tumor types have been shown to exhibit this phenomenon. See, e.g., Frost et al., Cancer Res. 43: 125 (1983).
It appears that tum.sup.- variants fail to form progressive tumors because they initiate an immune rejection process. The evidence in favor of this hypothesis includes the ability of "tum.sup.- " variants of tumors, i.e., those which do not normally form tumors, to do so in mice with immune systems suppressed by sublethal irradiation, Van Pel et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 5282-5285 (1979); and the observation that intraperitoneally injected tum.sup.- cells of mastocytoma P815 multiply exponentially for 12-15 days, and then are eliminated in only a few days in the midst of an influx of lymphocytes and macrophages (Uyttenhove et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1175-1183 (1980)). Further evidence includes the observation that mice acquire an immune memory which permits them to resist subsequent challenge to the same tum.sup.- variant, even when immunosuppressive amounts of radiation are administered with the following challenge of cells (Boon et al., Proc. Natl, Acad. Sci. USA 74: 272-275 (1977); Van Pel et al., supra; Uyttenhove et al., supra). Later research found that when spontaneous tumors were subjected to mutagenesis, immunogenic variants were produced which did generate a response. Indeed, these variants were able to elicit an immune protective response against the original tumor. See Van Pel et al., J. Exp. Med. 157: 1992-2001 (1983). Thus, it has been shown that it is possible to elicit presentation of a so-called "tumor rejection antigen" in a tumor which is a target for a syngeneic rejection response. Similar results have been obtained when foreign genes have been transfected into spontaneous tumors. See Fearon et al., Cancer Res. 48: 2975-1980 (1988) in this regard.
A class of antigens has been recognized which are presented on the surface of tumor cells and are recognized by cytolytic T cells, leading to lysis. This class of antigens will be referred to as "tumor rejection antigens" or "TRAs" hereafter. TRAs may or may not elicit antibody responses. The extent to which these antigens have been studied, has been via cytolytic T cell characterization studies, in vitro i.e., the study of the identification of the antigen by a particular cytolytic T cell ("CTL" hereafter) subset. The subset proliferates upon recognition of the presented tumor rejection antigen, and the cells presenting the tumor rejection antigens are lysed. Characterization studies have identified CTL clones which specifically lyse cells expressing the tumor rejection antigens. Examples of this work may be found in Levy et al., Adv. Cancer Res. 24: 1-59 (1977); Boon et al., J. Exp. Med. 152: 1184-1193 (1980); Brunner et al., J. Immunol. 124: 1627-1634 (1980); Maryanski et al., Eur. J. Immunol. 124: 1627-1634 (1980); Maryanski et al., Eur. J. Immunol. 12: 406-412 (1982); Palladino et al., Canc. Res. 47: 5074-5079 (1987). This type of analysis is required for other types of antigens recognized by CTLs, including minor histocompatibility antigens, the male specific H-Y antigens, and the class of antigens referred to as "tum.sup.- " antigens, and discussed herein.
A tumor exemplary of the subject matter described supra is known as P815. See DePlaen et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 2274-2278 (1988); Szikora et al., EMBO J 9: 1041-1050 (1990), and Sibille et al., J. Exp. Med. 172: 35-45 (1990), the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference. The P815 tumor is a mastocytoma, induced in a DBA/2 mouse with methylcholanthrene and cultured as both an in vitro tumor and a cell line. The P815 line has generated many tum.sup.- variants following mutagenesis, including variants referred to as P91A (DePlaen, supra), 35B (Szikora, supra), and P198 (Sibille, supra). In contrast to tumor rejection antigens--and this is a key distinction--the tum.sup.- antigens are only present after the tumor cells are mutagenized. Tumor rejection antigens are present on cells of a given tumor without mutagenesis. Hence, with reference to the literature, a cell line can be tum.sup.+, such as the line referred to as "P1", and can be provoked to produce tum.sup.- variants. Since the tum.sup.- phenotype differs from that of the parent cell line, one expects a difference in the DNA of tum.sup.- cell lines as compared to their tum.sup.+ parental lines, and this difference can be exploited to locate the gene of interest in tum.sup.- cells. As a result, it was found that genes of tum.sup.- variants such as P91A, 35B and P198 differ from their normal alleles by point mutations in the coding regions of the gene. See Szikora and Sibille, supra, and Lurquin et al., Cell 58: 293-303 (1989). This has proved not to be the case with the TPAs of this invention. These papers also demonstrated that peptides derived from the tum.sup.- antigen are presented by the L.sup.d molecule for recognition by CTLs. P91A is presented by L.sup.d, P35 by D.sup.d and P198 by K.sup.d.
PCT application PCT/US92/04354, filed on May 22, 1992 assigned to the same assignee as the subject application, teaches a family of human tumor rejection antigen precursor coding genes, referred to as the MAGE family. Several of these genes are also discussed in van der Bruggen et al., Science 254: 1643 (1991). It is now clear that the various genes of the MAGE family are expressed in tumor cells, and can serve as markers for the diagnosis of such tumors, as well as for other purposes discussed therein. See also Traversari et al., Immunogenetics 35: 145 (1992); van der Bruggen et al., Science 254: 1643 (1991) and De Plaen, et al., Immunogenetics 40: 360 (1994).
U.S. Pat. No. 5,342,774, cited supra and incorporated by reference, teaches various members of the MAGE family of TRAPs, in genomic DNA and cDNA form. Genomic DNA for MAGE-10 is taught in PCT application PCT/US92/04354, cited supra, in SEQ ID NO: 22, as a 920 base pair fragment. DePlaen, et al., Immunogenetics 40: 360-369 (1994), discusses PCR work which identified a 485 nucleotide portion of MAGE-10. Also, see Genbank Accession No. U10685, incorporated by reference. A cDNA molecule, however, is not discussed.
The previously cited PCT application discusses antibodies to MAGE proteins generally. Chen et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,541,104, to Chen et al., incorporated by reference, teaches monoclonal antibodies which specifically bind to tumor rejection antigen precursor MAGE-1. This patent is incorporated by reference. In order to prepare the monoclonal antibodies, Chen et al produced a MAGE-1 TRAP in E. coli which was not full length, because of difficulties with expression of the full length molecule.
It has now been found, however, that monoclonal antibodies which bind to both MAGE-1 and MAGE-10 TRAP can be produced. This is surprising in view of the reports in the literature, because it was not seen to be possible to produce such antibodies with the available information on MAGE-10. The TRAP encoded by the cDNA for MAGE-10 is found to be a molecule of about 72 kilodaltons molecular weight, on SDS-PAGE. It has also been found that polyclonal antibodies specific to MAGE-10 can be produced. These, as well as other aspects of the invention, are set forth in the disclosure which follows.